reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I understand that the fact is maybe that no one knows, thanks for the link however it seems to be broken ...
The link is not broken and it
will answer a lot of your questions. It even has a diagram showing where they think the fuel is, having left the primary containment to varying
degrees but according to their diagrams not having left the secondary containment. There could be some question about the accuracy of the diagrams,
but in reality it's not possible to know the exact location of the melted cores. I think they used estimates, simulations etc to determine the
location but they aren't 100% sure.
I was hoping for a layman terms blow by blow of the situation: reactor 1 stable, impacton surrounding environment minimal etc
need to read that source. But to summarize what it says, the radiation levels in the reactor are lethal, but at the boundaries of the property they
are 1/70th of the background radiation above background. I'm not sure I believe them, but that's what it says.
However it may just be a simple case of acomplicatedsituation with limited information released to ascertain basic theories on what is
happening ( and potentially large amounts of hersay/disinformation)...
Yes it's complicated and there's disinformation, but I can tell you
some things we do and don't know. We do know what radiation levels are harmful/lethal, like LD50 with is the radiation dose that will kill 50% of
people exposed to it. So right off the bat you have some uncertainty, 2 people get exposed to the exact same radiation level and one lives and one
dies (or 100 exposed and 50 live and 50 die), so you know it's not completely predictable. I'm sure you can get such lethal exposure if you get close
enough to the melted cores but of course nobody goes there.
Now here's what we don't really know. How much does exposure to low levels of radiation increase your chances of illness or death? One hypothesis is
the "no safe level of exposure" that says any increase is harmful and will cause deaths. Another hypothesis is that extremely low levels of additional
exposure are not significantly harmful.
I've looked at both sides and I don't have any particular bias to believe one or the other, I just want to know the truth. The facts seem to be
insufficient to prove either hypothesis at this point. See this powerpoint in pdf format which on page 7 basically summarizes that point as
We lack scientific data to determine a precise risk of cancer in the future from radiation exposure today
That's the reality, in the middle between "any amount will kill you" and "low levels are safe". That's a pretty useful document that even gives you
things to think about if you're considering medically related radiation exposure.
But you can forget about ELE you mentioned in the OP. Fukushima is in no way an ELE, nor was Chernobyl. In fact more people will probably die from
exposure to coal burning power plants than either one of those nuclear disasters, but few people ever mention that.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of that graph's specific data but I can say if you have better data, present it, and I know that burning coal kills
people too, heck burning coal even releases radiation! (There are small amounts of radioactive materials in the coal that get released when it's
burned, not to mention other potentially harmful/toxic substances).
The biggest problem I have with nuclear power is the lack of a good plan to dispose permanently of high-level waste. Of course in Chernobyl and
Fukushima type accidents large tracts of land can also be rendered uninhabitable for a long time.
I think there are many things much more likely to kill me than Fukushima radiation, but as a precaution I haven't been eating fish from the Pacific
since the disaster. I don't know how irradiated they may or may not be as they aren't tested for radiation as far as I know. Some fish right off the
coast of Fukushima have been measured for radiation and were found to be highly contaminated, so you definitely wouldn't want to eat them, though I
thought I read that TEPCO was going to put up a net to contain those fish or something?
edit on 16-10-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification